Latest news with #California-only
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Automotive
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Is anyone surprised that oil refineries are leaving California?
To the editor: With regard to your article ('Newsom's push to reduce fossil fuels is clashing with California's thirst for gasoline,' Aug. 11), why are Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic members of the state Legislature surprised? The Legislature passes bills that primarily are intended to score points and do more to harass oil companies than they do to reduce air pollution. Newsom applauds these political bills and urges them to pass more. Many years ago, Democrats in the Legislature pretended to be petroleum engineers and designed a funky political kind of gasoline not used by the other 49 states. This political gasoline is the only kind allowed to be sold in California. It is more costly to make and can only be made by oil refineries modified at great expense. When oil companies charge more for this extra-cost gasoline, Newsom accuses them of price gouging. If California cannot find oil refiners outside the U.S. who are willing to modify their refineries to make 'California-only' gasoline, and who are willing to put up with the state government's false acquisitions and harassment, some owners of gasoline-powered cars will have to relearn their childhood skills at riding bicycles. Gordon Binder, Pasadena ... To the editor: All this Sturm und Drang over the closing of two refineries in California is misplaced. Any serious study of market trends would conclude that the end of internal combustion will be as soon as 2035, a mere decade from now. Instead of telling readers that a reduction in oil refining is going to cause price increases because of a scarcity of gasoline, point them in the direction of getting off of gas entirely by switching to an electric vehicle. Americans buy more than 40,000 new cars — about 3,300 of them are EVs — every single day on average. The cheapest gas car is a basic econobox from Nissan for about $17,000. That much money will buy you an excellent used EV that will serve you better without polluting the air or supporting oil companies. And since you aren't buying gas, demand goes down, reducing the need to raise prices. I'd like to see California use the talents of our film industry to produce commercials that dissuade folks from buying new gas cars. Reduce demand for gas cars and we'll get to the end of internal combustion sooner than later. Paul Scott, Santa Monica
San Francisco Chronicle
08-08-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
State Farm downgraded in California by major financial rating agency
A major credit rating agency has downgraded its rating for State Farm's California arm for the second time in just under three months, citing the insurer's 'significant exposure to natural catastrophe risk.' In May, S&P Global Ratings had lowered State Farm General's financial strength rating from an AA to an A+ rating and warned of a potential future downgrade. This week, it took the company's rating down further, to an A-. State Farm General is the largest home insurance company in California, covering about 15% of all homes in the state. It's also been very public about its rapidly deteriorating financial condition: In 2023, State Farm stopped writing new home insurance policies altogether, and in 2024 it began dropping nearly 30,000 homeowners. Ratings from third-party agencies bear great significance for insurance companies because they can determine whether their clients are able to get a mortgage. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which provide federally-backed mortgages, maintain minimum rating standards for insurance companies. If an insurer drops below that standard, their customers may no longer be able to get a mortgage from the same lender. Private lenders also often hold certain standards for insurance companies. Home insurance tool: See how the biggest California home insurers are rated — and what it could mean for your mortgage Even with the back-to-back downgrades, State Farm General still meets Fannie and Freddie's requirements to have a BBB rating or better from S&P. It does have a B rating from another credit rating agency, A.M. Best — making it one of that agency's two lowest-rated insurers in California. However, while the B rating falls below Freddie Mac's standard of a B+, companies only need to meet one rating requirement to remain acceptable for mortgage lenders. State Farm General is the California-only subsidiary of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., an Illinois company that itself maintains an AA rating from S&P and a A++ rating from A.M. Best. 'The outcome was anticipated, and our approach is unchanged,' the company said in a statement. 'We remain deeply concerned about the financial position of State Farm General, as it is difficult to match price to risk in California. To ensure the long-term sustainability of State Farm General, we are being diligent in our efforts to turn around the financial stability of the company.' State Farm General's financial state was already weak headed into the beginning of this year, and was then made worse by the Los Angeles wildfires, S&P noted. The insurer has estimated it will pay $7.6 billion in claims from the Eaton and Palisades fires, though all but $400 million of that will be covered by its national parent company, State Farm Mutual, which provides reinsurance — insurance for insurance companies — to its subsidiary. State Farm Mutual has also agreed to give State Farm General a $400 million loan to help buoy its finances — a positive factor that was taken into account during the rating assessment, according to S&P. Their rating assumes that State Farm General will secure ultimate approval for the interim 17% home insurance rate increase that the insurer began implementing this June. The California Department of Insurance is expected to hold a hearing in October that will determine the final premium rates for State Farm, which could range from a 30% average increase to no increase at all. The latter could lead to refunds for customers whose rates have already risen. If approved at the full amount, it would be the largest rate hike from State Farm General in at least eight years. Last year, the insurer began implementing an overall 20% rate hike on home insurance customers. Survivors of the Los Angeles fires have continually opposed this rate increase, urging Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to delay a final decision until after his department completes an ongoing investigation into allegations that State Farm has failed to properly communicate and make payments to survivors. Earlier this month, the Eaton Fire Survivors Network sent Lara a letter saying it would be 'regulatory failure' to allow the rate hike to go through before the investigation is finalized. State Farm has said it anticipates the investigation will reveal thousands of satisfied customers. If the rate hikes do not get approved, and if State Farm General's financial position continues to deteriorate, that could lead S&P to lower the insurer's rating even further. Analysts noted the insurer could also face another downgrade if its parent company wavers in its financial support. But for now, S&P said its outlook for State Farm General is stable, reflecting its expectation that the insurer's 'capital position will remain satisfactory, that its operating performance will improve, and that it will maintain its position as the largest homeowners' insurance carrier in California.'
Miami Herald
21-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
State Farm seeks to boost California home insurance rate hike to 30%
A week after winning emergency approval to raise Californians' home insurance premiums, State Farm is seeking to boost that rate hike even higher to 30%. On May 13, the state's largest insurance company got the OK from regulators to increase rates by an average of 17% starting next month. State Farm secured the expedited rate hike after asserting it was in financial distress and expected $7.6 billion in claims arising from the deadly Los Angeles wildfires in January. The "interim" rate increase, however, was only part of a 30% hike the company asked for in June 2024. To reach the full amount, State Farm filed a request Monday for an 11% increase starting next year, on top of the already approved 17% increase. Since the hikes would happen sequentially, they would have the effect of raising rates by 30%. State Farm is also requesting to raise rates by 36% for condos and 52% for renters. The California Department of Insurance said it will hold a public hearing in October to continue gathering information from company officials as they seek to justify the requests. "State Farm wanting a rate increase doesn't change the law," the agency said in a statement. "All rates must be justified so consumers don't pay more than is required." It's unclear exactly how much premiums could go up in the Bay Area or which parts of the region would see the largest rate hikes. Statewide, the insurer covers roughly 15% of homes, totaling more than 1 million customers. When State Farm made its initial 30% request last June, the company asked the insurance department to grant a "variance" to raise premiums higher than usual due to its financial outlook. State Farm General, the company's California-only subsidiary, had issued multiple warnings about its solvency. S&P Global Ratings recently threatened to downgrade the insurer's credit rating, signaling concerns about its financial strength. With the June request still pending, the insurer asked regulators to approve the emergency hike after the devastating fires in Los Angeles County. At the recommendation of an administrative judge, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara last week authorized the 17% hike, slightly less than the 22% the company had requested. In a statement, State Farm said it was "pleased" with Lara's decision but made clear it would continue pursuing the full 30% increase. Consumer advocates, however, said regulators should not have agreed to approve the expedited rate hike - the first time an insurer won such approval in California. They called on the insurance department to closely scrutinize the data that State Farm is now providing to justify another increase. "We've already heard from consumers who are outraged that they just got 17% and now they're asking for more," said Carmen Balber, executive director of Los Angeles-based Consumer Watchdog. State Farm's latest request is the most recent chapter in California's insurance crisis, as providers have ended coverage for hundreds of thousands of policyholders across the state in recent years amid unprecedented wildfire losses. California's insurance rates are closely regulated and, as a result, lower than in many other parts of the country. The insurance industry argues that has left insurers in an untenable situation, even as companies have won approval for repeated rate hikes in recent years. In an attempt to stabilize the faltering home insurance market, state regulators earlier this year finalized a plan that includes allowing insurers to raise rates based on the growing threat of climate change - long an industry demand - in exchange for expanding coverage in parts of the state with the greatest wildfire risk. Consumer advocates, however, contend the plan will lead to huge rate increases and lacks the teeth to force insurers to add homeowners. In the greater Bay Area, insurers who opt into the plan will be expected to write more policies in Marin, Napa and Santa Cruz counties, as well as parts of San Mateo and Sonoma counties and a sliver of Santa Clara County. Insurers would also have to offer new policies for fire-risk homes in suburban areas such as the East Bay Hills and Los Gatos. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California regulators want to weaken hazardous waste disposal rules
California environmental regulators are considering rolling back the state's hazardous waste disposal rules, potentially permitting some municipal landfills to accept more contaminated soil from heavily polluted areas. From lead-acid battery smelters to rocket testing facilities, heavy industry over the past century in California has left large swathes of land imbued with dangerous chemicals. As a result, contaminated soil that has been removed during major environmental cleanups or new construction has typically comprised the largest bloc of hazardous waste in California each year. More than 560,000 tons of toxic dirt are excavated every year on average, according to a 2023 DTSC report. The vast majority of this polluted soil would not qualify as hazardous waste outside of California, because the state has more stringent rules than the federal government. But now the California Department of Toxic Substances Control is recommending loosening the state's hazardous waste rules for contaminated soil, arguing that many nonhazardous landfills are adequately equipped to accept chemical-laced dirt, according to an unpublished draft plan obtained by The Times. DTSC spokesperson Alysa Pakkidis said the agency is exploring ways to manage California-only hazardous waste "under different standards while still protecting public health and the environment," as required by a 2021 state law. The agency's recommendations will be detailed in the state's first Hazardous Waste Management Plan, a document that is intended to help guide state strategy on potentially dangerous wastes and which the 2021 law requires be published every three years. The law called for the first version to be published by March 1. But as of March 11, it has still not been posted publicly. The DTSC proposal comes as hazardous waste, namely in the form of soil polluted after the recent L.A. wildfires, has become top of mind. Government agencies are facing blistering criticism over their decision to allow untested — and potentially hazardous — wildfire ash and soil to be disposed of in municipal landfills across Southern California. Environmental groups say allowing nonhazardous waste landfills to accept chemical-laced soil would be a grave mistake. By dumping more toxic substances into the landfills, there's a higher chance of chemicals leaking into groundwater or becoming part of airborne dust blowing into nearby communities. "The reason we established these waste codes was to protect California's groundwater and public health,' said Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, an environmental nonprofit. 'You can see how effectively [the state is] regulating landfills without the hazardous waste. We're finding vast noncompliance." California's more rigorous hazardous waste standards have led to higher costs for industry and government, as under the current rules, contaminated soil must be transported to a specialized hazardous waste facility in California or hauled to landfills in neighboring states. California currently has only two hazardous waste landfills: Kettleman Hills and Buttonwillow, both in San Joaquin Valley. Oftentimes, contaminated soil is taken to nonhazardous landfills in neighboring states that rely on the more lenient federal standards. The average distance driven to dispose of California-designated hazardous soil is about 440 miles, according to a DTSC draft report. "Because there's only two and they're kind of far away from everything, it is very expensive to take material there,' said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste, a Sacramento-based environmental nonprofit. "So people are always looking for ways to not take material there, and that has sometimes resulted in people taking material out of state." The proposed changes would in theory give private industry a larger selection of in-state landfills to which they could send their waste. DTSC argues that this would result in shorter trucking distances, less air pollution and lower costs. But the state could also see cost savings from relaxing its policies. California has been funding the removal and replacement of soil in neighborhoods around the Exide battery plant in Southeast L.A. County — the state's most expensive cleanup. State contractors are trucking hazardous soil from that site to nonhazardous waste landfills in Utah, Nevada and Arizona — states that rely on the more lenient federal hazardous waste standards. California currently uses three tests to determine whether solid waste is hazardous. One ensures waste doesn't exceed state-established limits for certain toxic substances when the waste is in a solid form. For example, soil with 1,000 parts per million of lead is considered toxic by the state. The other two tests measure the concentration of toxic substances that seep out of solid waste when it is exposed to an acid. These are intended to simulate how solid waste could release chemicals inside the landfill as it's exposed to leachate — liquid waste from rainfall or decomposing garbage. One of these tests is based on federally established methods, and the other is based on the stricter California state-established standards. DTSC recommends allowing contaminated soil that fails the state's leakage test to be dumped at nonhazardous waste landfills, so long as it passes the other two tests. They stressed that hazardous soil would be sent to landfills with liners and leachate collection systems — equipment that gathers and pumps out liquid waste that trickles to the bottom of the dump. Environmental advocates say liner systems can fail when damaged by earthquakes or extreme heat. They argue that sending chemical-laced soil into such systems would eventually imperil groundwater near landfills and could lead to long-term contamination risks. Residents who live near the landfills that are already accepting debris from the Eaton and Palisades wildfires say they are also worried about toxic dust. One of these sites is the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, a 1,036-acre landfill located in a blustery mountain pass in the northeastern San Fernando Valley where gusts often blow dust and odors into nearby communities. The landfill is less than a mile away from a popular recreational area with soccer fields and baseball diamonds. After trucks moved fire debris to the landfill, Erick Fefferman, a resident of nearby Granada Hills, decided against allowing his son to participate in a youth soccer league there this year. "We keep hearing about liners and leachate, but we're not hearing about wind," said Erick Fefferman. "Things don't just sink down — they also get lifted up." Contaminated soil is allowed to be used as "daily cover," a layer of material spread over municipal waste to prevent odors and pests. In a November 2024 meeting, when state officials were asked if California-only hazardous soil could be used as a cover, a DTSC representative said 'it is a consideration." California's hazardous waste laws were first established in 1972 to direct the state to regulate the handling, transportation and disposal of dangerous materials within the state. The state adopted a more rigorous classification system and regulations, including the state leakage test, in the 1980s. Though California's regulations are among the strictest in the nation, they have been loosened over time. In 2021, for example, the state legislature adopted rules allowing for wood coated with toxic metals like chromium and arsenic to be taken to nonhazardous waste facilities. Contaminated soil could be next. DTSC is working to identify regulatory or statutory avenues that would allow for soil that could be contaminated with heavy metals to be dumped at California landfills. To do so, the agency will need the cooperation of the state Water Resources Board and CalRecycle, which regulate nonhazardous waste landfills. Landfill owners would also need to volunteer to accept contaminated soil, according to the DTSC draft plan. The Board of Environmental Safety, a five-member committee that provides oversight of DTSC, will host a series of public meetings on the state's hazardous waste plan. The board is scheduled to vote on whether to approve the plan in July. Environmental advocates say the plans will likely face stiff opposition. "If we need more disposal capacity, maybe we should be requiring everybody to have the same standards as a hazardous waste landfill," said Lapis, the advocacy director for Californians Against Waste. "Deregulation is not the right solution, the fact that they're even proposing it is kind of crazy to me." This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California regulators want to weaken hazardous waste disposal rules
California environmental regulators are considering rolling back the state's hazardous waste disposal rules, potentially permitting some municipal landfills to accept more contaminated soil from heavily polluted areas. From lead-acid battery smelters to rocket testing facilities, heavy industry over the past century in California has left large swathes of land imbued with dangerous chemicals. As a result, contaminated soil that has been removed during major environmental cleanups or new construction has typically comprised the largest bloc of hazardous waste in California each year. More than 560,000 tons of toxic dirt are excavated every year on average, according to a 2023 DTSC report. The vast majority of this polluted soil would not qualify as hazardous waste outside of California, because the state has more stringent rules than the federal government. But now the California Department of Toxic Substances Control is recommending loosening the state's hazardous waste rules for contaminated soil, arguing that many nonhazardous landfills are adequately equipped to accept chemical-laced dirt, according to an unpublished draft plan obtained by The Times. DTSC spokesperson Alysa Pakkidis said the agency is exploring ways to manage California-only hazardous waste 'under different standards while still protecting public health and the environment,' as required by a 2021 state law. The agency's recommendations will be detailed in the state's first Hazardous Waste Management Plan, a document that is intended to help guide state strategy on potentially dangerous wastes and which the 2021 law requires be published every three years. The law called for the first version to be published by March 1. But as of March 11, it has still not been posted publicly. The DTSC proposal comes as hazardous waste, namely in the form of soil polluted after the recent L.A. wildfires, has become top of mind. Government agencies are facing blistering criticism over their decision to allow untested — and potentially hazardous — wildfire ash and soil to be disposed of in municipal landfills across Southern California. Environmental groups say allowing nonhazardous waste landfills to accept chemical-laced soil would be a grave mistake. By dumping more toxic substances into the landfills, there's a higher chance of chemicals leaking into groundwater or becoming part of airborne dust blowing into nearby communities. 'The reason we established these waste codes was to protect California's groundwater and public health,' said Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, an environmental nonprofit. 'You can see how effectively [the state is] regulating landfills without the hazardous waste. We're finding vast noncompliance.' California's more rigorous hazardous waste standards have led to higher costs for industry and government, as under the current rules, contaminated soil must be transported to a specialized hazardous waste facility in California or hauled to landfills in neighboring states. California currently has only two hazardous waste landfills: Kettleman Hills and Buttonwillow, both in San Joaquin Valley. Oftentimes, contaminated soil is taken to nonhazardous landfills in neighboring states that rely on the more lenient federal standards. The average distance driven to dispose of California-designated hazardous soil is about 440 miles, according to a DTSC draft report. 'Because there's only two and they're kind of far away from everything, it is very expensive to take material there,' said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste, a Sacramento-based environmental nonprofit. 'So people are always looking for ways to not take material there, and that has sometimes resulted in people taking material out of state.' The proposed changes would in theory give private industry a larger selection of in-state landfills to which they could send their waste. DTSC argues that this would result in shorter trucking distances, less air pollution and lower costs. But the state could also see cost savings from relaxing its policies. California has been funding the removal and replacement of soil in neighborhoods around the Exide battery plant in Southeast L.A. County — the state's most expensive cleanup. State contractors are trucking hazardous soil from that site to nonhazardous waste landfills in Utah, Nevada and Arizona — states that rely on the more lenient federal hazardous waste standards. California currently uses three tests to determine whether solid waste is hazardous. One ensures waste doesn't exceed state-established limits for certain toxic substances when the waste is in a solid form. For example, soil with 1,000 parts per million of lead is considered toxic by the state. The other two tests measure the concentration of toxic substances that seep out of solid waste when it is exposed to an acid. These are intended to simulate how solid waste could release chemicals inside the landfill as it's exposed to leachate — liquid waste from rainfall or decomposing garbage. One of these tests is based on federally established methods, and the other is based on the stricter California state-established standards. DTSC recommends allowing contaminated soil that fails the state's leakage test to be dumped at nonhazardous waste landfills, so long as it passes the other two tests. They stressed that hazardous soil would be sent to landfills with liners and leachate collection systems — equipment that gathers and pumps out liquid waste that trickles to the bottom of the dump. Environmental advocates say liner systems can fail when damaged by earthquakes or extreme heat. They argue that sending chemical-laced soil into such systems would eventually imperil groundwater near landfills and could lead to long-term contamination risks. Residents who live near the landfills that are already accepting debris from the Eaton and Palisades wildfires say they are also worried about toxic dust. One of these sites is the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, a 1,036-acre landfill located in a blustery mountain pass in the northeastern San Fernando Valley where gusts often blow dust and odors into nearby communities. The landfill is less than a mile away from a popular recreational area with soccer fields and baseball diamonds. After trucks moved fire debris to the landfill, Erick Fefferman, a resident of nearby Granada Hills, decided against allowing his son to participate in a youth soccer league there this year. 'We keep hearing about liners and leachate, but we're not hearing about wind,' said Erick Fefferman. 'Things don't just sink down — they also get lifted up.' Contaminated soil is allowed to be used as 'daily cover,' a layer of material spread over municipal waste to prevent odors and pests. In a November 2024 meeting, when state officials were asked if California-only hazardous soil could be used as a cover, a DTSC representative said 'it is a consideration.' California's hazardous waste laws were first established in 1972 to direct the state to regulate the handling, transportation and disposal of dangerous materials within the state. The state adopted a more rigorous classification system and regulations, including the state leakage test, in the 1980s. Though California's regulations are among the strictest in the nation, they have been loosened over time. In 2021, for example, the state legislature adopted rules allowing for wood coated with toxic metals like chromium and arsenic to be taken to nonhazardous waste facilities. Contaminated soil could be next. DTSC is working to identify regulatory or statutory avenues that would allow for soil that could be contaminated with heavy metals to be dumped at California landfills. To do so, the agency will need the cooperation of the state Water Resources Board and CalRecycle, which regulate nonhazardous waste landfills. Landfill owners would also need to volunteer to accept contaminated soil, according to the DTSC draft plan. The Board of Environmental Safety, a five-member committee that provides oversight of DTSC, will host a series of public meetings on the state's hazardous waste plan. The board is scheduled to vote on whether to approve the plan in July. Environmental advocates say the plans will likely face stiff opposition. 'If we need more disposal capacity, maybe we should be requiring everybody to have the same standards as a hazardous waste landfill,' said Lapis, the advocacy director for Californians Against Waste. 'Deregulation is not the right solution, the fact that they're even proposing it is kind of crazy to me.'
